Why does Tunheim do this? Very disappointing

[James DiEugenio]

Doug Horne just posted on his blog another interview John Tunheim did, this time much more recent than the one I posted.  But between this blog, and my posting of a 2017 interview he did, this is three times he has done this in a decade.  And just remember, he is the last surviving member of the Board.

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2023/11/25/

In my opinion, this really reflects poorly on the ARRB since it was never meant to solve the JFK case, like the WC and HSCA were.  The most they were supposed to do was to inquire about contradictory issues in the evidence.  Which Jeremy Gunn and Horne did.  And that was largely done at the specific request of Lou Stokes, chair of the HSCA. Since he thought the HSSCA did a bad job on the medical side--which they did.

Horne said in his book that Gunn told him that none of the Board members thought the case was a conspiracy.  OK, fine. But nearly all of them, especially the late Kermit Hall, made written or oral comments voicing that opinion.  Which was not just inappropriate for their function as a declassification agency, but also juxtaposed to the evidence they themselves were uncovering.  The ARRB changed the calculus of the JFK case forever. I mean how does Tunheim not know that?

Finally, the excuse he gives for the majority of Americans not buying the WC is so trite, unconvincing and frankly insulting, that I am glad Horne countered it specifically.

Very discouraging I think.

Edited November 27, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

 Here is another one:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/462-dan-barreiro-26981004/episode/judge-jack-tunheim-on-jfk-records-130028153/?cmp=android_share&sc=android_social_share&pr=false

It really get sickening toward the end when the host, a guy named Dan Baerreiro says he is buds with Posner, and they talk about oh, its a much better story if its not just one loser off the street killing the president.

Oh please Jack. Look at your own evidence.

[Benjamin Cole]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:19 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Doug Horne just posted on his blog another interview John Tunheim did, this time much more recent than the one I posted.  But between this blog, and my posting of a 2017 interview he did, this is three times he has done this in a decade.  And just remember, he is the last surviving member of the Board.

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2023/11/25/

In my opinion, this really reflects poorly on the ARRB since it was never meant to solve the JFK case, like the WC and HSCA were.  The most they were supposed to do was to inquire about contradictory issues in the evidence.  Which Jeremy Gunn and Horne did.  And that was largely done at the specific request of Lou Stokes, chair of the HSCA. Since he thought the HSSCA did a bad job on the medical side--which they did.

Horne said in his book that Gunn told him that none of the Board members thought the case was a conspiracy.  OK, fine. But nearly all of them, especially the late Kermit Hall, made written or oral comments voicing that opinion.  Which was not just inappropriate for their function as a declassification agency, but also juxtaposed to the evidence they themselves were uncovering.  The ARRB changed the calculus of the JFK case forever. I mean how does Tunheim not know that?

Finally, the excuse he gives for the majority of Americans not buying the WC is so trite, unconvincing and frankly insulting, that I am glad Horne countered it specifically.

Very discouraging I think.

Horne does a good job on the unfathomable Tunheim statements, so I won't add much. 

Tunheim is a federal judge? So if a dozen witnesses testified in a murder case, in his court, that they heard two shots from inside a suspect's building, but when the police got there they found no weapon or suspect, would Tunheim say "there was no evidence that there had been gunshots from inside the building."?

Or, would he conclude the physical evidence had disappeared? That is, the suspect ran off, with his gun? 

As a judge he might conclude (actually it would be a jury) that the evidence was not strong enough to convict. That is fine, that is called reasonable doubt. 

But there is a difference between having reasonable doubt and simply saying, "There is no evidence." 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I agree Ben.

He really overstated the case, and IMO, he should not be doing this kind of thing.

Another point, its like he does not even know who Sebastian LaTona was, or what the original autopsy says about the entry points in JFK and the fact neither wound was dissected. Which is unconscionable in a homicide by gunshot wounds.